3 ms·

> I see where you're coming from - if it's good enough that we can't distinguish it, then does any difference really matter? I submit it's fundamentally differe

by johnfn 4y ago

> I see where you're coming from - if it's good enough that we can't distinguish it, then does any difference really matter? I submit it's fundamentally different. This is essentially the Chinese Room thought experiment [1] or a nice similar metaphor with an octopus from Section 4 of this paper [2]. I'm trying to follow your reasoning, but I get stuck right on this line. If you have two systems that are implemented in different ways but the output is indistinguishable I feel that you're forced to claim that the systems operate in fundamentally similar ways. I'm actually confused how anyone could claim the opposite! I've read about the Chinese Room too and I have roughly the same reaction. I feel like the Chinese Room is akin to saying that any particular neuron in your mind doesn't know how to think. To my view, the guy in the Chinese Room is the same as another one of the many neurons in your head, and it's the system itself which has consciousness, not any constituent part.

NateEag 4y ago
> If you have two systems that are implemented in different ways but the output is indistinguishable I feel that you're forced to claim that the systems operate in fundamentally similar ways. So a nuclear power plant and a solar panel farm each generating 4500 MW are operating in fundamentally similar ways? I mean... in some sense, yeah. They both rely on electromagnetic effects to generate electricity. They still seem to be operating in really different ways to me, though.
- defrost 4y ago
  Sure .. I mean one is providing 4500 MW from a fission reaction whereas the other is providing 4500 MW from a fusion reaction . . . but fundamentally both are providing nuclear sourced power.
  - NateEag 4y ago
    My point was about the self-contained systems, not the rest of the universe around them.
    - defrost 4y ago
      True enough, mine was that in the context of a discussion about reasoning about reasoning (if it is fact reason), you might need better metaphors. I don't hold with a lot of the evolutionary claims put forward in Jaynes Origin of Consciousness.. but he does put forward a solid intitial discussion of "WTF is intelligence anyway" that's worth the read (if you've not read it and have the interest).

by johnfn 4y ago

NateEag 4y ago

> If you have two systems that are implemented in different ways but the output is indistinguishable I feel that you're forced to claim that the systems operate in fundamentally similar ways. So a nuclear power plant and a solar panel farm each generating 4500 MW are operating in fundamentally similar ways? I mean... in some sense, yeah. They both rely on electromagnetic effects to generate electricity. They still seem to be operating in really different ways to me, though.

defrost 4y ago
Sure .. I mean one is providing 4500 MW from a fission reaction whereas the other is providing 4500 MW from a fusion reaction . . . but fundamentally both are providing nuclear sourced power.
- NateEag 4y ago
  My point was about the self-contained systems, not the rest of the universe around them.
  - defrost 4y ago
    True enough, mine was that in the context of a discussion about reasoning about reasoning (if it is fact reason), you might need better metaphors. I don't hold with a lot of the evolutionary claims put forward in Jaynes Origin of Consciousness.. but he does put forward a solid intitial discussion of "WTF is intelligence anyway" that's worth the read (if you've not read it and have the interest).